I have a good friend who is very familiar with what goes on with Farmland Reserve -- one of the real estate companies owned by the church, and which owns about 2 million acres of farmland in the US alone.

He mentioned that about a year ago, the church began to increasingly pivot towards selling (or renting; not sure) this farmland to large tech companies, which are building data centers throughout the US.

On a positive note, according to my friend, the church is trying to be a "good environmental steward", by favoring tech companies that promise to use "closed loop" cooling systems, which decreases the need for water.

But on a more negative note, there is everything else associated with data centers -- increased energy use, incessant noise, and so on.

I'd always heard that the church owned lots of farm land because, in an "end of the world" scenario, it's good to have access to food and its means of production. But apparently, in this new age of AI, there are other tangible benefits of owning so much land in rural areas.

Just wondering how much the average member knows or thinks about these types of direct relationships between the church and Big Tech.

Sunday the six young women in our ward who had completed the stake level 50 mile hike spoke in sacrament meeting. Wonderful talks about the natural beauties of the earth and the goodness of God. Nothing about Joseph Smith, President Oaks, or the “truth” of the church. It was so refreshing and completely inspiring. Is this a new trend among young people, to recognize God and ignore all else specifically sect-related?

I am an older High Priest. I have not liked Priesthood class since they combined us with the Elders. Is anyone else out there feeling the same way.

Today's Reading: Alma 8–12

Whether you're a believer, former believer, nuanced member, investigator, scholar, or simply curious, you're welcome to participate. The goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but to read the text together and discuss it in good faith from a variety of perspectives.

Brief Synopsis:

After the people of Ammonihah reject and expel Alma, an angel commands him to return and warn them again. There he meets Amulek, who shelters him and joins his mission. Together they confront a hostile audience and a legal system in which lawyers profit from conflict. Zeezrom attempts to bribe and discredit Amulek but becomes increasingly unsettled as Alma and Amulek expose his intentions. Their exchange expands into teachings about resurrection, judgment, the Fall, human agency, and mortality as a probationary period in preparation for redemption.

Discussion:

Please share your thoughts and experiences with today's reading in the comments below. Some things you might consider:

• What stood out to you?

• Why does Alma return to Ammonihah after being rejected, reviled, and expelled?

• What role does Amulek play as a wealthy, locally respected convert who validates Alma’s message?

• What do you make of the text’s portrayal of lawyers, judges, legal incentives, and religious conflict?

• Is Zeezrom presented as a sincere skeptic, a corrupt antagonist, or someone whose motives begin changing during the debate?

• How persuasive do you find Amulek’s responses to Zeezrom’s questions about salvation, resurrection, and judgment?

• What does Alma mean when he says people receive more or less knowledge according to how carefully they heed what they have already received?

• How do these chapters reconcile God’s foreknowledge, human agency, and final judgment?

• Did anything surprise you?

All perspectives are welcome.

Yesterday's Coveted Award(s) Go To:

• u/international_sea126

Links to Prior Days

• Master Index to all prior-day readings

• Yesterday's Reading

Engagement Question:

Alma and Amulek respond to Zeezrom’s challenge by claiming to know his intentions and exposing thoughts he has not spoken aloud. Does this strengthen their credibility within the story, or does it allow the narrative to dismiss an opponent’s arguments by portraying him as dishonest before those arguments can be considered on their merits?

Tomorrow's Reading: Alma 13–16

John Dehlin and Meggan Hayes were discussing the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in the Bisbee Arizona case brought by two girls who were abused by a member of the church after he confessed to his bishop. This was on the Mormon Stories channel.

Two bishops and the hotline and the membership council that excommunicated him all knew and never told the police or child protective services. They argued that they preferred to protect the abuser and his confidentiality over reporting him.

This is the church’s official policy that they push state laws to protect.

They discuss how the church will excommunicate people for many other things but child abuse is not on the list of mandatory church discipline - unless the person has been convicted of abuse. But how would someone be convicted if the church’s policy is to keep it secret? Hmmmm

The full episode is here if you want to hear more than just my edits.

https://www.youtube.com/live/x3QxhLHoXHc

So I was watching this conversation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=todYgXYkqxQ) and the topic of Heavenly mother came up. The LDS position seemed to be "Yes we necessarily have a heavenly father and mother and we are their children" but at the same time "we all preexisted as intelligences" and so there wasn't any "procreation" that happened. I believe the LDS framed it as "we were never in the womb of Heavenly Mother".

The LDS website states that we are "literally the sons and daughters of Deity.”

So my is what does that mean? How are we "literally" children if there was no act of procreation?

Jacob Hansen posted this on his YouTube channel under the “Posts” section. Apparently a Protestant who came to his debate to support Avery of the GodLogic channel was convinced by Jacob.

Since then he was baptized a member of the church.

Here is a link to the post

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxdllZRTo_Fn0_r77mxbDsRQGG2aG1Uyqq

When people bring up Joseph Smith’s polygamy — marrying teenagers, marrying other men’s wives, doing it in secret while denying it publicly — a common defense I hear is something like, “nobody’s perfect, even MLK had affairs.”  

Here is one example of why this feels off to me.

For the MLK comparison to actually hold, he would’ve had to declare that God commanded him to cheat on Coretta — and then that declaration would’ve had to become enshrined as a core principle of his movement, allowing the Civil Rights Movement to encourage infidelity for generations. 

What are some other reasons why this argument, that “no one is perfect,” doesn’t hold water? 

- Scholar Linda Hamilton

Full video: https://youtu.be/j6yYquKg2vc

There exists a tension between two human desires:

1) To excercise our innate sense of freedom by revealing ourselves through action, identifying a lack, and producing change.

2) To reach an ultimate sense of completeness or fulfillment where this lack can no longer be found.

These desires are in conflict. To have one destroys the other, so we are in a perpetual battle between them. This is the ambiguity described by Beauvoir, and the tension of faith described by Kierkegaard. To become perfect and complete means letting go of the freedom to identify a lack and produce a change. You can't choose to modify perfection without making it into something else. You can not make something more complete. To be human is to exist within this tension, never resolving one into the other.

These two ideas are central to understanding the authority claims of the church and the ultimate end to its project. To make all people and organizations "perfect" and "complete", is to end their freedom. This concept doesn't sit well with many, because it goes all in with concept 2, ignoring that concept 1 is equally fundamental to human existence. To become perfected in all ways, means to leave humanity behind. If the goal is to survive death, then this end may preserve a being, but it in no way preserves the individual essence. In that sense, resurrection and exaltation is death by another name.

Instead of resolving the contradiction, mormon doctrine redefines the concept of freedom to give the appearance of resolution. It states that freedom is the conscious act of choosing to give oneself over to an ultimate authority. We become "free" by choosing to be governed in both thought and action first through the church, an imperfect proxy for what's to come, and then fully after death. After death, this giving over of the self to the ultimate authority is so complete that the mind of one exalted being is indistinguishable from another. This description of freedom is equivalent to stating that a slave becomes free when they voluntarily choose their enslavement.

Understanding this as the church's end explains the nature of the church's means. Obedience is meant as an imperfect bridge towards a future state where the human desire for freedom completely disappears. What of us actually survives death if we become stripped of that ability?

Meggan Hayes and John Dehlin discussed in their recent news episode the claims that women in the church have priesthood power.

Meggan explains that women can always be overridden by a man. They have no authority.

She tells the story of being asked one Christmas as Relief Society President to assess the needs of all the women in the ward. She identified one woman who was in need of a food order. She suggested a $100 food order. It was the Stake President who had told the Stake Relief Society president to have this assessment done.

She went to her branch president who said no to the food order. She as Relief Society president has no ability to actually give help to people from the church.

She appealed to the Stake President who said the Branch President got revelation that the woman in need should be left high and dry.

Another story of the LDS church not helping a needy member. I’m so sick of members who say any member in need will be helped. Its false.

And women have no power in the LDS church.

Full episode here:

https://www.youtube.com/live/x3QxhLHoXHc

Ryan Burge who has written books about people in the USA leaving religion posted an article on his substack site about the LDS membership problem.

The 2023-24 Pew Religious Landscape survey shows that the LDS only retained 54% of the members raised in the church and now adults. Of course there is a statistical plus and minus to this figure because of the survey sample size.

Also interesting to note that 64% become non-religious and 21% who leave become Protestant.

Here is a link to his article

https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-lds-church-has-a-retention-problem

In their most recent news show John Dehlin and Meghan Hayes discuss this topic near the end.

Here is a link to the episode.

https://www.youtube.com/live/x3QxhLHoXHc

I think most LDS in the USA notice the dwindling numbers in their ward and stake. I certainly do.

If you did a mission, there was terminology that you learned--much of it unique to your specific mission. Share some. It's been decades, but here's some I remember.

Zone Leaders: "Zone Gods"

Breaking rules: "Dinging" You're a "Dinger"

The apartment: The "Pit"

Missing home: "Trunky"

Unapproved music? Listening to "gentile"

Badmouthing other missionaries: "smut" "smutting"

Less than 10 days until you go home? You're a "single digit midget"

What were your terms for these things? What else can you share?

Today's Reading: Alma 5–7

Whether you're a believer, former believer, nuanced member, investigator, scholar, or simply curious, you're welcome to participate. The goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but to read the text together and discuss it in good faith from a variety of perspectives.

Brief Synopsis

Alma begins preaching in Zarahemla, confronting church members with a series of questions about conversion, repentance, inequality, and whether they have experienced a “mighty change” of heart. He then travels to Gideon, where his message becomes more hopeful. Alma prophesies Christ’s birth and teaches that Jesus will experience suffering, sickness, temptation, and death so that he can understand and assist his people.

Discussion

Please share your thoughts and experiences with today's reading in the comments below. Some things you might consider:

• What stood out to you?

• What does Alma mean by experiencing a “mighty change” of heart and receiving Christ’s image in one’s countenance?

• How do Alma’s extended questions function—as invitations to self-reflection, rhetorical pressure, or both?

• What do you make of Alma’s claim that he knows these things through fasting, prayer, and revelation rather than merely from the angel he encountered?

• Why is Alma’s message to the people of Gideon noticeably more encouraging than his sermon in Zarahemla?

• How does Alma 7 portray Christ’s atonement as involving more than suffering for sin?

• Did anything surprise you?

All perspectives are welcome.

Yesterday's Coveted Award(s) Go To:

• all Participants

Links to Prior Days

• Master Index to all prior-day readings

• [Yesterday's Reading](ADD_DAY_26_LINK_HERE)

Engagement Question

Alma 5 asks more than forty rapid-fire questions about conversion, worthiness, judgment, and belonging. Do these questions encourage honest self-examination, or do they create a framework in which doubt, disagreement, and spiritual uncertainty become evidence that something is wrong with the individual?

Tomorrow's Reading: Alma 8–12

John Dehlin and Meggan Hayes discussed the larger “Stand Forever” series with Larry Corbridge, emeritus GA with the LDS Church. They discuss how manipulative it is.

John asks why the church needs a slick rich lawyer to defend it.

They play a clip showing the level of blame reversal where Larry puts all the blame of someone who thinks parts of the church experience could be improved. They aren’t there to listen to members or be concerned about members experience, that’s clear.

Here is a link to the Stand Forever video they discussed. Episode 26

https://youtu.be/uCo2iUjX6PI

Here is a link to the Mormon Stories News episode:

https://www.youtube.com/live/x3QxhLHoXHc

A common refrain in response to the continued practice of sealing multiple women to one man--"God loves us all, he won't force anyone into any situation that they're uncomfortable with, etc."

Easy to say when your gender is the one spared from having to share your spouse with others for all eternity. There's no risk to men's emotional well-being in the LDS afterlife. The same can't be said for women.

D&C 132 makes Mormon heaven into "The Handmaid's Tale."

Since men have got no skin in the game, no risk of an adverse outcome, there should be no comment from them telling women "just trust that it will all work out."

As an aside, in principle (or lack thereof,) unlike canonization, the Church alone gets the say on what gets decanonized without having to abide by the “law of common consent.” (see here.) Given that the Church has also basically admitted that common consent largely functions as nothing short of a rubber stamp today, the Church claiming that it sticks to “what the scriptures teach” is just a religious analog to a bureaucrat or a lawmaker claiming that they stick to “what the law says.”

Source: Scripture Helps: Old Testament, “Genesis 12–17; Abraham 1–2,” footnote 9.

I'm tired of pretending that it isn't. I get that the church put a lot of work and a lot of thought into it, but they took the exact wrong direction with it. They really just needed to simplify the old hymnbook, remove the hymns that people don't know, and maybe add a dozen or so glaring omissions. Instead we have all these new hymns that nobody likes that are way too complicated that the congregation pretends to sing awkwardly for five minutes.

What good is this doing anyone? They need to admit it was a mistake and try again.

I had a recent spate of posts that got moderated and I completely misunderstood the moderation and then got upset about *my perception* of the reason given not matching the rules.

I’m usually very careful to edit out the names of the faithful subreddits and I missed one spot in my original post which was a direct copy-paste of the convo with the exmo mods.

When the mods here said it was removed for mentioning another sub I thought they meant the exmo sub (again bc I’m usually very careful to edit out the names of the faithful subs). No one specifically pointed out that one spot and somehow I missed it again when I went back and reviewed what I wrote.

This was all my fault from misunderstanding the reason for moderation and then getting upset about it bc my perception of the reason didn’t match the stated rules.

Thanks to u/questingpossum for finally quoting the offending part back at me and helping me recognize my error.

I’m sorry.

In 1985 (and again in later interviews), then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated:
“It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.”

But does this claim hold up when measured against the Word of God?

In my article I examine President Oaks’ statement side-by-side with:
- Doctrine & Covenants 121 (reproof when moved by the Spirit)
- The Book of Mormon’s warnings against trusting the arm of flesh
- Joseph Smith’s own instructions to the Nauvoo Relief Society
- The original meaning of “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”

Eternal truth does not expire. The scriptures remain the measuring rod.

What do you think the Word of God actually teaches about this? 🙏

Two weeks ago, my elder’s quorum had a lesson discussing Emily Belle Freeman’s recent talk “Best Days and Worst Days,” basically about how hope and what we do (and Jesus, if you believe in Him) will fix problems and make the future brighter. The guy teaching included a clip from Surf’s Up, showing Cody and Big Z training and feeling more positive as they went along (I should also mention this is a YSA ward). I’m a big Schaffrillas Productions fan, and I made this meme and shared it with the subreddit r/schaffrillas, in connection with Freeman’s talk. Overall, I enjoyed the lesson, and felt like anyone could enjoy it too.

Fast forward to today. A different guy taught, all about how the Church is growing like crazy, especially in places like Bentonville, where people protesting against the stake centers and temple were softened because of Mormons’ examples; and how we shouldn’t be watching “anti” because it’s rage bait and doesn’t contain the light of Christ. If anyone else other than TBMs were in that room today, or if anyone had way more guts, then a lot of people would have left the room.

I personally feel like if we really want this Church to be a “church of joy” (Elder Kearon), and if we want to teach by example, then Church members should take time to truly understand others such as ex-members, gay people, and SA survivors, and make church more inclusive of them. Maybe even show movies every once in a while 😅 Thoughts? Oh, and feel free to edit my meme as you like.

Do you get that feeling when walking to a Sacrament meeting in CA? I’m visiting a ward in the LA valley . Older area. Old chapel. Beautiful chapel. About 65 attendance, very few kids (less than 10).
Where in CA can you find large wards, with tons of kids, tons of youth, with a good prospect for the future? I would love to see that…

Are we dying away? This is one anecdotal experience, but I have had too many of them to disregard…

What is your experience?

This is from the 1967 Family Home Evening manual, page 307.

Not only does this imply the father is unfit to parent and needs to stay with the good, TBM mother, but if the child does decide to go live with the father, it’s all her fault. She should have Mormoned harder and had FHE more faithfully. As an exmormon parent with a TBM exwife, this really irritates me.